Cruz Broke His Pledge: Readers Respond

Some readers believe that Cruz has all but crossed out his career. Others like what he did.

I suspected that Cruz’s decision not to endorse Donald Trump would disappoint many.

Yet regardless of the political cost or consequences of Cruz’s non-endorsement for Trump, Cruz made his decision.

Ted Cruz (source: Trailblazers)

Here’s what you had to say:

Against

Ted is not innocent in all of this. His campaign put out a suggestive photo of Melania to smear Trump and also the statement that Ben Carson was dropping out of the race which was untrue. Cruz needed to get over his “offense” and endorse Trump like he promised. I think his career is damaged at this point. — John O.

For one reader who was unhappy with Cruz, she wrote him an open letter:

Dear Senator Cruz,

My husband is one of many pastors at Calvary Chapel, and we were blessed to have your father speak to our congregation last year. He is fabulous! We can see why you brag about him. . .

We don’t know you well, but we have defended you to many people, especially assuming you’re a genuine Christian.

After your team cheated Dr. Carson out of votes in Iowa (who forgave you and Trump for betrayal), and after your friends hassled 90-year-old Phyllis Schlafly for her support of Donald Trump (causing the removal of her program from radio), we were sickened even more while watching your Convention speech last night. It appears you are more interested in your own personal feelings and future, than that of America and We the People.

As a Christian, you must know this life isn’t about you, but about the LORD’s will for our Nation that is ignoring Him, and worse, shoving Him out. Voting for one who will uphold America rather than for Hillary, could delay God’s judgment on America. Truly think about that, and the risks we face, as an ungodly Nation out of control!

And you might also consider neither Hillary nor Trump is born again yet. . . but you are. You can’t expect those of the world to operate like we do. We are to love our “enemies” and pray for them. . . because you and I know the Bible shows us that we’re all wretched outside of Christ.

You know the only real choice before us is a deceitful Hillary Clinton or a patriotic Donald Trump, neither of which is perfect. We haven’t forgotten that you didn’t keep your word (which we saw you give on the Debate) to endorse Trump, if he were the Republican candidate. God doesn’t expect you to be Trump’s best friend, but He does expect all of us to pray for him, for Hillary (& Bill), and even for Obama. God’s love is amazing, isn’t it?!?!

After last night, you surely can’t be at Peace today. I can only imagine you have hurt your reputation with the majority of Americans, and you’ve possibly hurt the Republican party. You need to know that most Christians we shared you with in the past (after Dr. Carson was out of the race), said they didn’t care for your countenance, didn’t trust you.

You could have a very humble reputation that exalts Christ, like Dr. Ben Carson, who isn’t in this for himself, and never was. We truly pray that God will humble your heart and you will openly endorse Donald Trump for the good of our Country, and for your own peace of heart and mind. — Marsha T.

Quite a letter!

Some shared their disappointment, plain and simple:

Ted Cruz disappointed me very badly! First, when he said that he does not know/not sure which pedal would step on, if Donald Trump would be behind his car. Second, he did not keep his pledge. We are called to love our enemies, not to revenge. The revenge belongs to God (Romans 12:17-21). He made a BIG, BIG mistake! — Vasile M.

—–

I was very disappointed with Ted Cruz. As a gentleman, he was honor bound to endorse Trump because he gave his word he would do so. How much more must he honor his word because he continually told the world that he is a Christian. If he can’t be trusted to on or his word with such a simple pledge, how could we ever trust him to honor his word on the really tough issues? — Laura O.

—–

This voter voted for Cruz when he ran for U.S. Senate. He’s having second thoughts now:

When Ted Cruz ran to be a senator I voted for him and liked him very much. I did not let anyone say anything negative about him. I thought he is solid good Christian with integrity. I am disappointed in him. He should have chosen the higher ground and endorsed Donald Trump for the sake of the welfare of Americans and America. This is not about Cruz nor about Trump but about the future of Americans and the peace around the world. Cruz claims to be a Christian Trump does not make any such claims, yet Cruz did not act any different then Trump. Let us not be hypocrites and do what our Lord is asking from us. I do not think I can vote for him again. He, Cruz mist his chance to show Trump how a follower of Christ acts. He retaliated and said some very awful things about Trump also. — Ilene E.

—–

I believe Cruz should keep his pledge but as Christians we need to convince him of that in love, not with criticism and condemnation.

I am not saying you are doing that because you are politely spelling out the case biblically and then simply asking the question.

However, I have been saddened to read some other commentaries and listen to crowds disrespectfully chant and boo at him before his speech was over. I was disappointed that he did not endorse Trump but I forgive him too. I also wish Trump had not attacked Cruz again the day after the convention and yet I also forgive Trump.

As a nation, we all need to be more respectful to each other and when we disagree we need to always speak the truth in love.

May God richly bless your work. — Joan V.

Support

I hope he never endorses Trump. I saw and heard Trump say he did not want Cruz’s endorsement and support. He also said he would not endorse anyone if he didn’t become the nominee. Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth. He is a coward of the worst sort and if I have to vote for him, I will be weeping as I exit the voting booth. — Beverly E.

This letter was particularly insightful:

Sometimes I think this whole issue with Ted Cruz is overblown. Is a “pledge” to a political party really worth all this arguing? I’m not a political “junkie,” so I don’t think so.

The issue, as I see it, is not just whether Ted Cruz was wrong to “break” a “vow.”

For a Biblical illustration of keeping a vow, the most dramatic case would be Jephthah, who ended up killing his own daughter in order to keep his vow to God (see Judges 11). Today, I think most Americans with traditional American thinking would say that he should not have killed her. Keeping your word is important, but not important enough to cause you to kill your own family member, which is a (worse) violation of God’s law, in our modern opinion.

Ted Cruz had two vows in conflict with each other. His first vow was to his wife. I have no idea what he and she said at their wedding service, but traditional Christian vows usually include the concept that husband and wife vow to honor each other. When Donald Trump insulted and threatened Cruz’s wife, I would say that immediately raised the issue of Cruz’s marital vow to honor her. At that point, Cruz could not keep his pledge to the Republican party without violating his vow to honor his wife. Like this: “Yeah, I’m an honorable man, so I’ll endorse this guy who dishonors my wife whose honor I’m supposed to defend. I’ll break my vow to her in order to keep my vow to the Party.” Really?

Additionally, Cruz’s father was also insulted. Now we have one of the Ten Commandments involved, namely, to honor one’s father and mother. Again, Cruz could not endorse Trump without running afoul of this Commandment from God.

I’d say he was in a real Catch-22 with this situation. How do we decide what to do when we have made two vows that conflict with each other? Or, what should we do when one of our vows unexpectedly puts us in a situation where we must choose between our vow and God’s law? I don’t think the Bible gives much guidance when we pit God’s law against God’s law. — Karen H.

This person had a nuanced view, but still supported Ted Cruz:

We have a dilemma. We have been forced into a difficult situation regarding Donald Trump. This man demeaned decent and talented opponents who were far worthier of nomination than himself. He behaved like a child and actually made a fool of himself as he called names, made ridiculous accusations, made fun of a physically challenged man, and then attacked Ted Cruz’s wife and father.

We now have a choice between Hillary and Trump. We must choose Trump but we must remember how he comported himself during the debates. We are forced to accept Trump. He did well in his speech. He laid out the truth of our situation but I am worried about what he will do once he has the power of the presidency.

I think Ted Cruz should have stayed away from the convention. I admire him for standing up for the honor of his wife and father. Ted Cruz is an honorable man. Donald Trump’s behavior and actions have negated Mr. Cruz’s pledge. I support Ted Cruz.

Comments 45

Never liked or trusted Ted Cruz. I know from listening to him many times, he would damage our Social Security system and Medicare program. He has always inferred that they are some kind of welfare system, subject to discretionary budget spending; in fact, the S.S. Act prohibits Congress from taking money from it for other uses. He along with Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have always attempted to make us think these were not viable programs; and, in fact declared them to be not viable and soon to be broke. The SS Fund has approximately 6.5 trillion in surplus which has been “loaned” to the government, with the benefits paid out from the interest only. Simple modifications would continue it in perpetuity, but Congress is neglecting to do anything to ensure this. Also, the reimbursement to hospitals for the “free” healthcare provided to anyone (legal resident or not) in accordance with President Reagan’s EMTALA Act is being stolen from our Medicare Fund—and, no body seems to care. Congress simply calls it a disaster but makes absolutely no attempt to correct the situation.

To correct my comment on 7-27-16, I said the SS Fund had $6.5 trillion in it. It actually has $2.8 trillion according to latest figures I could find. Sorry about that error. I wanted to correct it ASAP to avoid have it repeated and debunked.

If you would read about FDR and his SS program you will find he intended the money to stay in the SS Fund where ” …Congress can’t get their hands on it.” It now has $2.8 trillion in reserves that Congress has “borrowed” and now is “attempting” to make us think it is part of the General Fund— and included within the budget—and, that they are running out of money to pay the our benefits we worked all our lives for . This is a huge lie! It cannot (by law) be considered as part of the General Fund for budgeting purposes. Neither can Medicare—but they steal billions from it every year to fund Reagan’s EMTALLA Act which forces hospitals to admit anyone including illegals through the emergency rooms—even though they have no means to pay. Ted Cruz would destroy these most vital programs if he had the chance.

If you would read about FDR and his SS program you will find he intended the money to stay in the SS Fund where ” …Congress can’t get their hands on it.” It now has $2.8 trillion in reserves that Congress has “borrowed” and now is “attempting” to make us think it is part of the General Fund— and included within the budget—and, that they are running out of money to pay the our benefits we worked all our lives for . This is a huge lie! It cannot (by law) be considered as part of the General Fund for budgeting purposes. Neither can Medicare—but they steal billions from it every year to fund Reagan’s EMTALLA Act which forces hospitals to admit anyone including illegals through the emergency rooms—even though they have no means to pay. Ted Cruz would destroy these most vital programs if he had the chance.

Again, social programs were always something that the Democrats in the Federal government have always wanted, and is getting, absolute of; it was always meant to be kept from the states. What Cruz is trying to do (and you twist to look as if it is bad) is salvage what money has been put into these programs to go back to the people that have “invested (been taxed really – it’s not volunteer)” into them.

The only other feasible program I’ve ever seen is the Chilean SS system. The money is invested by the individual into stocks selected by the government, and grouped into three categories of risk. It provides a good return; and, encourages the investors to help make their investments do well by being more diligent in their work at those same companies they invested in. That said, without the ingenuity of FDR, there would be millions more pushing shopping carts down the streets of America. No other President has done as much for our country as FDR. Google him and just read about his accomplishments—you’ll be astonished—especially in light of all he had going against him. I would say Jefferson comes in second with the Louisiana Purchase; opposed by those with Libertarian philosophies he set the precedent for further land purchases for which there is nothing (even according to Madison) in the Constitution allowing for purchases of land.

Obviously you know something about Milton Friedman, the Chicago Boys and “The Miracle of Chile”. As to FDR and his “ingenuity”, it was more “cunning” than “ingenuity”; he knew people cannot resist Santa Claus. There were and are much better ways to get people to save.

FDR knew once the federal government could get people locked into a system (like SS) where they needed the Federal government to take care of them and take away what should have been an individual state issue he would gradually enslave them to his Party – the Democrat Party. But that has been the way of Democrats since their inception – get as many enslaved to them as they can; and have as small a population as possible (if any) in control over their own lives.

You couldn’t possibly be more wrong, unless you also vote for Hillary. Obviously you are the extreme opposite—an radical Libertarian, and believe everything should be by the “free market”: The Police and Fire Department; Hydroelectric Dams and every other source of utilities; Roads; The programs to ensure food and drug safety; Building Codes—you name it; Everything but the military. If you cannot understand on your own, the reason for Social Security, Medicare, and several other (legitimate and essential) Government run programs then it wouldn’t do anyone any good to try to explain it to you. If it weren’t for rational, thinking people like FDR and LBJ who gave us SS and Medicare there would be millions more pushing shopping carts and holding signs on corners because in most cases the Medical bills alone would have wiped them out. It sounds like you either inherited a lot of money or, lucked out and made it on your own and can’t understand why everyone can’t afford individual health insurance. Either that or you worked for a large co. or a Government agency (nannies) that provided your health insurance and retirement, so how could you be expected to understand reality.

I have read about and heard Milton Friedman a couple times doing live interviews. He has a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. He will say one thing and then turn around and say just the opposite later. I’m talking about things like a rational, possibly logical government quasi-government program like the Fed. The Federal Reserve is the most perfect way to prevent, or, at least mitigate recessions and depressions. He accepts the idea of a ‘National Bank’, but isn’t this the same as the Federal Reserve—except it is a private entity with government oversite; And, hasn’t it done a great job since they evolved, learned and greatly improved since the Great Depression? Why is it the model for every other industrialized country? Here is a sample to think about taken from the internet: Monetarism is a school of thought in monetary economics that emphasizes the role of governments in controlling the amount of money in circulation. Monetarist theory asserts that variations in the money supply have major influences on national output in the short run and on price levels over longer periods. Monetarists assert that the objectives of monetary policy are best met by targeting the growth rate of the money supply rather than by engaging in discretionary monetary policy.[1]

Monetarism today is mainly associated with the work of Milton Friedman, who was among the generation of economists to accept Keynesian economics and then criticise Keynes’ theory of gluts using fiscal policy (government spending). Friedman and Anna Schwartz wrote an influential book, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960, and argued “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Though he opposed the existence of the Federal Reserve,[2] Friedman advocated, given its existence, a central bank policy aimed at keeping the supply and demand for money at equilibrium, as measured by growth in productivity and demand.

I never stated that Milton Friedman was “the perfect economist”, nor that I don’t have my disagreements with a bit of his work – he did create withholding income for the purpose of jump starting the collection of Federal government revenue; the very idea keeps us Christians from giving to the Lord the first fruits of our labor. But what I do agree with him on is his free market ideas.

I am not taking away the merits of people being incentivized by saving during times of recession (depression) or any other time; just that the WAY AND MEANS FDR did it was dead wrong – it was and always should be a state issue just like, “The Police and Fire Department; Hydroelectric Dams and every other source of utilities; Roads; The programs to ensure food and drug safety; Building Codes—you name it; Everything but the military” are a state issue. Control of social programs should be as close to individuals as possible; but you are stuck on FDR and unwilling to hear any other ideas.

It only makes sense to have the states in control of social issues by the mere fact that is MUCH more efficient. It is you who seem not to understand reality – what you admire about FDR grows FEDERAL government agencies (nannies). Why send money to the Federal government so that they can take a chunk out of it and then send what’s left back to the states that sent the net amount in the first place? But if you like FDR’s handling of healthcare; you must lust over Obamacare and its premiums. Also, health insurance is not the same as healthcare; and Obamacare is making healthcare less accessible and less efficient.

“If it weren’t for rational, thinking people like FDR and LBJ who gave us SS and Medicare there would be millions more pushing shopping carts and holding signs on corners because in most cases the Medical bills alone would have wiped them out?” COMPLETE CONJECTURE. The only reason the US was able to get out of the depression that FDR prolonged is the productivity in the free market that continued after WW II and the reduction of taxes. Just weeks after the end of the war Congress approved a reduction of 13 percent of total revenue; that helped the surge in the economy. The Truman slowed it down again after getting tax increases back again.

I never stated that Milton Friedman was “the perfect economist”, nor that I don’t have my disagreements with a bit of his work – he did create withholding income for the purpose of jump starting the collection of Federal government revenue; the very idea keeps us Christians from giving to the Lord the first fruits of our labor. But what I do agree with him on is his free market ideas.

I am not taking away the merits of people being incentivized by saving during times of recession (depression) or any other time; just that the WAY AND MEANS FDR did it was dead wrong – it was and always should be a state issue just like, “The Police and Fire Department; Hydroelectric Dams and every other source of utilities; Roads; The programs to ensure food and drug safety; Building Codes—you name it; Everything but the military” are a state issue. Control of social programs should be as close to individuals as possible; but you are stuck on FDR and unwilling to hear any other ideas.

It only makes sense to have the states in control of social issues by the mere fact that is MUCH more efficient. It is you who seem not to understand reality – what you admire about FDR grows FEDERAL government agencies (nannies). Why send money to the Federal government so that they can take a chunk out of it and then send what’s left back to the states that sent the net amount in the first place? But if you like FDR’s handling of healthcare; you must lust over Obamacare and its premiums. Also, health insurance is not the same as healthcare; and Obamacare is making healthcare less accessible and less efficient.

Think about what you’re saying: SS s/b a “State issue”; “People should save money on their own for retirement”. Obviously, you don’t understand the SS Program. Google it and see that it is not simply a savings account. Hydroelectric Dams s/b a “state issue.”, “People should save money during recessions”, etc., etc. I’m not going to even attempt to explain anymore, you have to be able to understand these things and obviously you either refuse to see, or you are not able to understand the issues. Google FDR and read about all his accomplishments.
If it weren’t for FDR there would be millions more pushing shopping carts and holding signs—even though they worked hard and were responsible all their lives.

Boarding the Trump train took months. I voted for Cruz in primary.
I finally realized it was inevitable Trump would be the nominee.
I am also aware the final outcome will be the vote of the people!
God gave us free will – choices & consequences. He will allow
the result.
The peace I have is knowing the the future is in God’s hands!!
It is obvious the Republic is turning away from God.
I was disappointed w/Cruz decision, it is imperative we unite.
Trump is successful & his family speaks to his character.
Jesus tells us to be fruit inspectors. Hillary has proven to be
less than truthful – she’s out!!

Cruz should never have even been in that position. He simply IS NOT eligible to run for the presidency as he is not a natural born citizen by any stretch of imagination — even if the boot-licking, biased and poorly educated judges (and pundits) we have today tend to rule he does. In fact, there is even some question whether his mother filed the necessary paperwork with the US Embassy at his birth to establish his claim to statutory US citizenship through her. Since he renounced Canadian citizenship in 2014, if it is true that she did not file, then he is today a man without a country.

I liked Cruz when he first gained national attention, but the more I see of him, the more I realize he lacks the integrity I look for in an elected official, and once I’ve moved and reregistered in Texas, I’ll be fighting to see he is not re-elected even to the Senate.

I’m glad to hear what you said. At some point (I didn’t take the time to look it up) Congress ruled that a person born to an American citizen automatically became a U.S. citizen. I had not heard that it was incumbent upon the qualifying parent to file any papers to make the child legally a citizen here. I hope it’s true because I don’t ever want to see Cruz in politics ever again. I don’t trust him as far as I could throw a house.

The problem with getting the population at large to understand this is that our schools don’t really teach the Declaration and Constitution much any more, and the average citizen thinks that just because someone is born on US soil or to a US citizen, that automatically makes them eligible. It is true that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (aka McCarren-Walter and also the law whose terms would govern both Cruz and Obama) sets forth virtually automatic citizenship for either type of person, born on the soil or to a citizen parent. But that is ordinary, everyday statutory citizenship.

What they almost universally forget is that the Constitution specifically calls for the president and VP candidates to be “natural born Citizens.” The word “Citizen” appears 11 times in the Constitution. Only once is its meaning narrowed and restricted by the modifier “natural born.” Clearly, if the Founders had intended that anyone born on the soil or to one citizen parent be a NBC, they would have left out the modifiers.

The royal houses of Europe, upon whom our Founders drew for some of their experience in writing the Constitution, were very concerned about this because of the many alliances among the nations and families. The general understanding in 1789 was that a NBC was a citizen born on the soil with BOTH parents being citizens. As late as 1866, a member of Congress named John Bingham (R-OH) was quoted as saying that a NBC is “one whose parentS [plural] are citizens.” Bingham was considered one of the primary authors of the 14th Amendment.

Many cite the 14th as grounds to acquire NBC status, but it only granted the rights of citizenship to the former slaves — it did not convey the special status required ONLY of the prez and the VP.

So Obama is not legally in office, because his father not only was never a US citizen, he never intended to be (and yeah, I know there’s a lot of question about who actually did beget Obama — topic for another discussion). And Cruz was born on foreign soil to a Cuban father, who did not give up his Cuban citizenship until Ted was 4-5 years old. At that point, the father became Canadian and did not become a US citizen until Ted was 35. Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship, but if he has a valid claim on US citizenship through his mother, does he not also have a valid claim on Cuban citizenship through his father? But when has anyone ever urged him to renounce that?

You are correct when you state that not enough people know their Constitution. If they did, they would understand that Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen of the United States.

“In March 26, 1790, the First Congress passed a law providing, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This appears to be the only legal text from the time of the Constitution’s adoption that defines the term ‘natural born citizen.'”

Thus the actual meaning of what the Founding Fathers meant what a “natural born citizen” to be.

You could be right. However, I don’t think it’s going to change anything unless Congress sits down and makes it clear once and for all even if it takes an Amendment. There are other things also needing Congressional action and probably Constitutional Amendments to clarify once and for all.

I liked Ted Cruz from the first time I heard him speak that he was Christian, love God, family and our country. I like his boldness and his decision to do what he said he would do according to the Constitution. He proved that right when he stood on the Senate floor and gave the longest address in history against something he did not believe and was against the Constitution. I said to myself, this is a guy that God can use, and he has a great future ahead of him in government.

I’m not quite sure what to say to Mr. Cruz’s decision not to endorse Donald Trump. He certainly is entitled to his decision. I understand how he feels about the attacks on his wife and his father, but as we all know, when a person is running for a public office, his entire life is on display and because of the stand he takes–morally, on principle for what he believes–he will be criticized, excoriated, viciously maligned, lied on, and every little tiny thing revealed in his life, even if it is trivial, will be talked about and judged, and taken completely out of context, especially by the media, which is demonic and hateful and partisan to one party only. And even the candidates running for the same public office, will take potshots at each other because it is a circus-like competition where everybody involved is competing for the same thing, so, the gloves are off and there are no rules to follow!

As a Christian, we are obligated to do the word of God especially when people say “all manner of evil against us”, and to “count it all joy when we fall into different temptations and testings.” None of this is easy of course, but we are admonished to do it by the word. The bible also says that “if we make a vow, we are to see to it that we pay it because we made the vow before God and His holy angels, otherwise, we will be labeled a liar. I have no criticism at all against Mr. Cruz; as I said, I understand how he feels. Family members should be off limits in campaigns for public office, but unfortunately, we live in a fallen, sinful, evil world, and we have no control over peoples’ actions and choices. Mr. Cruz is not the only one who hasn’t endorsed Donald Trump: many Republicans, Christians, and other people who are not going to vote for Hilary Clinton, haven’t endorsed him either, and that is their choice. I haven’t made that decision myself because I don’t like either one of these candidates running in the worst presidential election I’ve ever seen in this nation.

Let’s leave Ted Cruz’s decision between him and God. It is his decision after all.

Awesome Tute Katharina!! Thanks so much now I need to go spend more money on a waterbrush twinkling H20 and more 😉 hahahahahugs RiaBTW The images from the blogcandy are awesome and thanks so much for sending them.

I am beginning to get really impatient and frustrated waiting for this phone to come out! I don’t understand why Blackberry would make an announcement on a phone that they know people have been waiting for but not release at least an estimated date of release… I am about to turn away from the Blackberry if they keep playing games with their loyal customers!

You bet, Lauren! We’ll say hi to Living Song Farm for ya too.The next Fair Food Fight Night will be Tuesday, June 22. I’m still nailing down details, but it’s going to be a doozy. So keep the date free!

The gray borders on the side bother me a bit for some reason. I also thought that the font you had up for a couple days looked odd.I do like that the “Reply/Quote” buttons don’t get in my way any more, though.

think my point was that both Dali and Stravinsky produced art and music that dramatically departed from the prevailing art forms of their day. Many of their contemporaries, the bourgeoisie, found their art shocking and “unappealing.”

Ben–the KDP Select struck me as a corporate boardroom idea, too. The one title a month thing only applies to borrowers, whereas authors can put up all the titles they want. I’ve got a novelette coming out in about 10 days, and believe me, it’s headed straight for KDP Select.And you’re totally right about the traditional publishing world. Their heads are too far up their asses to see any daylight at all on this issue. They are STILL pretending like there’s nothing wrong.

One thing I’ve noticed over my many years—but even more so in the last ten years, or so, is the complete lack of common sense by so many who are at extremes of politics; and, the extreme right is just as guilty as the extreme left. Both are their own worst enemy. They get so locked into false beliefs they are completely blinded by facts; Not only blinded, but they “refuse to see”—which is the most blind of all. Example: Many cannot see that FDR was absolutely the best president of modern times. They refuse to see that, because of his logical and brilliant mind, he prevented us from losing the war. He got the President of GM to quit his job and devise plans for converting our factories into making war machinery. Many refuse to believe it was his policies and programs that finally got us out of the Great Depression—with the war as the final (unnecessary, but unpreventable) boost to the economy. They refuse to admit his TVA, Hoover Dam, CCC, WPA Projects, etc. , were not important—and that the “free Market” of Hoover and Hoovervilles, etc., would have saved our economy if left to it’s own devices. Yea, right—that was really solving the problem, wasn’t it. Anyone who believes things like that really has never actually studied about history, FDR, and his administration. They have no appreciation for the constraints i.e. the Dust Bowl, FDR’s physical incapacitating problems, and a multitude of others which he refused to give in to. The first thing FDR did in office was to cut the Federal Budget by 25%. He then did away with prohibition and taxed liquor putting $billions into the Treasury, instead of the gangster’s pockets—thus providing funds for his tremendous projects— and putting millions to “work”—not on “welfare”, like both parties do today. You name me one other President in modern times who has done as much. That said, today’s Democrats make me sick to the stomach. It bears no resemblance to what it used to be—the “working man’s party”.